Casey Bralla on 21 Jun 2008 12:43:18 -0700 |
I've been thinking about virtualizing on servers. Although I know that virtualized servers are the "next big thing", I can't for the life of me figure out the advantage for virtualizing servers, except for a few very narrowly specific situations. As I've understood it, virtualizing lets you run dozens (hundreds?) of servers on the same hardware. This saves energy because a single fully loaded server requires less electricity that dozens of partially loaded servers. This also means you can reduce the number of servers, saving space, physical maintenance, etc. (Cooling costs will only go down in proportion to electricity consumption, so not as dramatic a savings there.) But why not simply run dozens (hundreds?) of server **instances** on the same server? Why add the extra overhead of the virtualization process to the hardware? That has to cut efficiency by at least a few percent. So what is the advantage of running a complete virtualized server instead of multiple server processes? I can think on only 1: Clearly assignable responsibility for operation. (If I am responsible for apache on a server, and you are responsible for sendmail, I'll try to blame you when I screw up and apache stops working.) Virtualization also is good where someone is selling customer-maintained server time in a server farm. (Again, to isolate human responsibility, not to isolate program execution, per se.) But other than this specific case, what the heck is the advantage? -- Casey Bralla Chief Nerd in Residence The NerdWorld Organisation ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|